[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
> s = {} # new empty set
> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
Even though this isn't python-ideas, I just want to suggest having it like this:
s = {,} # new empty set
d = {} # same syntax for new empty dictionary
Instead of the backwards-incompatible change above.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KHN7GOKSUXA22ZZK7Y67UPM6QYOVDLAQ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
On 3/13/2022 5:49 PM, joao.p.f.batista...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently:
l = [] # new empty list
t = () # new empty tuple
s = set() # new empty set (no clean and consistent way of initializing regarding the
others) <<<
d = {} # new empty dictionary
Possible solution:
s = {} # new empty set
d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
This is such a good idea that many people, including myself, have
already had it, and even more agree that this would be the proper way
for a new language. But as already discussed on python-ideas, this
change would break possibly millions of programs, and we will will not
do that. Please don't futilely push this further.
Current workaround at least for consistency:
l = list() # new empty list
t = tuple() # new empty tuple
s = set() # new empty set
d = dict() # new empty dictionary
Anyone who values consistency can pay the price of this in ones own code.
If you have questions, python-list would be the appropriate place.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/5XVT47A2AWGKM3BRJD27OD3I64IPEQ2N/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
Oops, didn’t notice this wasn’t Python-ideas — that’s where it should be.
-CHB
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 3:44 PM Christopher Barker
wrote:
>
> Possible solution:
>> s = {} # new empty set
>> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
>
>
> This would be fine for a new language. But completely out of the question
> for Python — it would break an enormous amount of code.
>
> We are in this position because sets are relatively new to Python, and
> there are only so many brackets.
>
> Current workaround at least for consistency:
>> l = list() # new empty list
>> t = tuple() # new empty tuple
>> s = set() # new empty set
>> d = dict() # new empty dictionary
>>
>> However, it doesn't feel right to not be able to initialize an empty set
>> as cleanly and consistently as lists, tuples and dictionaries in both forms.
>
>
> It may not “feel” right, but is it that big a deal? There are literally
> any number of types that can’t be initialized with a “literal” — so
> consistence is not compelling here. set() is (maybe?) the only builtin, but
> is initializing and empty set that common?
>
> Note, there was a recent thread on this list about a literal for frozenset
> — I think:
>
> f{} was proposed— you may want to revive that -and add s{} for an empty
> set …
>
> Though i personally wouldn’t support the idea.
>
> -CHB
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
>
> Python Language Consulting
> - Teaching
> - Scientific Software Development
> - Desktop GUI and Web Development
> - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
>
--
Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/BIFDLW3R4GTWBCS2HYO6JXARI5YDGVBE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
> Possible solution:
> s = {} # new empty set
> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
This would be fine for a new language. But completely out of the question
for Python — it would break an enormous amount of code.
We are in this position because sets are relatively new to Python, and
there are only so many brackets.
Current workaround at least for consistency:
> l = list() # new empty list
> t = tuple() # new empty tuple
> s = set() # new empty set
> d = dict() # new empty dictionary
>
> However, it doesn't feel right to not be able to initialize an empty set
> as cleanly and consistently as lists, tuples and dictionaries in both forms.
It may not “feel” right, but is it that big a deal? There are literally any
number of types that can’t be initialized with a “literal” — so consistence
is not compelling here. set() is (maybe?) the only builtin, but is
initializing and empty set that common?
Note, there was a recent thread on this list about a literal for frozenset
— I think:
f{} was proposed— you may want to revive that -and add s{} for an empty set
…
Though i personally wouldn’t support the idea.
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ZBVUQDEBQEHUO5GLJ7FFQ4SJ5CAGMQFA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
Thanks! ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KYPH76YPDDZFZRM2XD3YWNSN2YZUYLIY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: An unambiguous way of initializing an empty dictionary and set
On 3/13/22 14:49, joao.p.f.batista...@gmail.com wrote:
> Currently:
> l = [] # new empty list
> t = () # new empty tuple
> s = set() # new empty set (no clean and consistent way of initializing regarding the
others) <<<
> d = {} # new empty dictionary
>
> Possible solution:
> s = {} # new empty set
> d = {:} # new empty dictionary (the ":" is a reference to key-value pairs)
>
> Current workaround at least for consistency:
> l = list() # new empty list
> t = tuple() # new empty tuple
> s = set() # new empty set
> d = dict() # new empty dictionary
>
> However, it doesn't feel right to not be able to initialize an empty set as
cleanly and
> consistently as lists, tuples and dictionaries in both forms.
This is a topic better fit to python-ideas.
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/AHUHYKKSVXSAIVYVAMNZDLFJQI4BEJU5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
